Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Mumsnet says Trans Rights are Human Rights!

999 replies

ool0n · 03/03/2021 14:39

I always assumed Mumsnet were not the biggest supporters of trans rights, given the stories about them. But this is a good statement on Twitter, "of course trans people exist, and of course trans rights are human rights"
twitter.com/MumsnetTowers/status/1367071394870276099

Also I thought using terms like cisgender or cis were against the rules, this isn't true either -
twitter.com/MumsnetTowers/status/1367080005193318401

So can I get a trans rights are human rights, trans women are women, trans men are men and non binary people are valid!

OP posts:
9toenails · 03/03/2021 19:34

TransRightsRCool:
... you people will not be satisfied by whatever definition of woman I provide. It'll always be too circular for you .

Thanks for that, TransRightsRCool. ' Too circular '! Wonderful.

Waspnest · 03/03/2021 19:34

I vaguely recall that the NSPCC withdrew because so many of the questions submitted asked about their questionable safeguarding guidelines.

Sophoclesthefox · 03/03/2021 19:34

Well put, barbara

HermitsLife · 03/03/2021 19:35

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ as it quotes a deleted post.

OvaHere · 03/03/2021 19:37

The reason that this forum has developed it's reputation is the suggestion that those sudo-philosophical debates provide any justification at all for the removal of human rights and legal protections from trans people in the UK.

I'd be interested in the justification of the removal of human rights and legal protections from women in the UK. Because that's what I see happening everywhere.

Waspnest · 03/03/2021 19:38

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ as it quotes a deleted post.

PotholeParadies · 03/03/2021 19:38

This thread is moving quite fast. Did I miss an answer on the implications that man/woman is about conscious identity would have for disabled people who don't have that cognitive capacity to ponder identities?

I know the human rights of disabled people aren't that fashionable, but it's still important.

Bertiebiscuit · 03/03/2021 19:38

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

AbsintheFriends · 03/03/2021 19:43

Why does woman have to be defined anyway? Wouldn't it be better to leave it undefined?

For some people I'm sure it would. For employers who promote parents of the class who don't gestate, breastfeed and get called up by school to pick up sick kids over the class of parent who do. And employers who systemically pay the class of person who aren't troubled by periods and menopause more than those who are. For the MoJ, who could just house any old pesky prisoners in together. For mediocre male athletes who could suddenly boost their performance ratings by competing against people with smaller, less muscular bodies. For all of those people and many more I am too weary to laboriously list it would be much better to conveniently not be able to categorise that category of human that has been consistently disadvantaged, discriminated against and denied agency for centuries.

Because it seems you don't need to be able to define what a woman is to rape one. Or choke one during sex. Or stalk one. Or punch one in the head and crush her 'eggshell skull'.

BarbaraofKent · 03/03/2021 19:43

Gotta love it how any time a company pulls out of an advertising contract or a webchat with Mumsnet, some members will (instead of taking a moment to think about why these companies are pulling out) look for reasons to try to discredit all these companies.

To be fair it wasn't difficult to discredit the NSPCC after Rubberman! The reason the webchat was cancelled as I remember was because there were too many questions about that incident and safeguarding generally. Of course people concerned about this happening at the country's largest children's charity were nothing more than 'homophobes' Hmm

Mockolate · 03/03/2021 19:43

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ as it quotes a deleted post.

Belleende · 03/03/2021 19:43

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

BaronessWrongCrowd · 03/03/2021 19:43

Wasn't the contract with Flora coming to an end? Then said something really daft. Don't really care as it's horrible stuff. Much better brands about. Bird's eye contract ended as well. Nspcc didn't like the questions over their former staff member and his toilet and fetish habits, I seem to recall.

Anyway, I digress. Carry on as you were.

HPFA · 03/03/2021 19:45

@yeahbutnaw

Should cisgender people openly debate what rights trans people should have?

Discuss.

Of course when they affect the rights other people have.

And if the stupid "No Debate" policy had never been introduced and we'd been listened to rather than had "bigot" screamed at us all the time we might actually have reached compromises.

TransRightsRCool · 03/03/2021 19:45

Sex-based oppression for females is important, and something I care about deeply (being born female myself), but it doesn't necessarily have to link with being a woman. Not every woman is female. But chances are she'll support female rights.

Impatiens · 03/03/2021 19:48

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Frogartist · 03/03/2021 19:48

But if transwomen are women are they cis-women? Or just women?

If they are women why are they called transwomen?

Can cis-women be trans?

Winesalot · 03/03/2021 19:50

Why does woman have to be defined anyway?

Maybe it is part of who has ‘access and benefit to the rights that girls and women have to progress their opportunities and keep them safe after a millennia of oppression and sexist discrimination due to their sexed bodies’.

sourdoughismyreligion · 03/03/2021 19:50

Why does woman have to be defined anyway? Wouldn't it be better to leave it undefined? So that you don't have to look and dress and be a specific way to be considered a woman? Or is that just for excluding trans women?

If you have to destroy the category of woman in order to include transwomen in it, that's a pretty damn big giveaway you understand full well transwomen belong in a different category. Look at you, telling on yourself like that.

BarbaraofKent · 03/03/2021 19:50

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

PotholeParadies · 03/03/2021 19:50

Also, what if someone who identifies as the opposite sex is in a coma and not currently identifying? Possibly not as crucial as the disability aspect, but still a philosophical quandery if the defining feature is identity, not physical reality or legal definitions.

Would you stop respecting their gender identity if they were comatose?

MarieIVanArkleStinks · 03/03/2021 19:51

Everyone has a gender identity, there are 60+ years of research into gender identity

And like every other body of research you are never going to find a consensus view. For every claim that the vague, nebulous concept of gender exists, there will be another claim against. That’s how social science works, because it simply isn’t possible to theorise a socially-constructed phenomenon using any viable, empirical, scientific formula.

Feminists have spent the best part of the 20th century arguing that their biological destiny is not set in stone because someone (men, usually) has decided for them what amounts to the feminine gender. Eg. pink/blue girl/boy stereotypes amount to nothing more profound than someone else’s (men’s) marketing policy. By the 1980s the primary colours of 70s kids’ toys had given way to the girls’ aisles resembling an explosion in a sugared almond factory. Is this determined by ‘biology?’ The fuck.

Gender is shifting, unstable, and changes its meaning just about every decade. It's a flimsy foundation on which to build a whole identity, that I'll grant you. But this gives no one carte blanche to impose their ideology on others, demand they announce 'their' pronouns, or redefine the language they use to describe themselves without their consent. To those who would try this: who in the actual hell do you think you are?

gender matches your sex.

Not possible. Sex is a set of biological characteristics, 'gender' merely the instrument of women's biological oppression. No wonder so many of us choose not to 'identify' with that. Not least, the human-defined constructs ‘masculinity’ or ‘femininity’ bear no relation to sex, unless they refer to heavy labour or childbearing that are directly linked to these characteristics.

And this also happens to be gender non-conformism. Regardless of how that person presents.

TransRightsRCool · 03/03/2021 19:51

@sourdoughismyreligion

Why does woman have to be defined anyway? Wouldn't it be better to leave it undefined? So that you don't have to look and dress and be a specific way to be considered a woman? Or is that just for excluding trans women?

If you have to destroy the category of woman in order to include transwomen in it, that's a pretty damn big giveaway you understand full well transwomen belong in a different category. Look at you, telling on yourself like that.

No one's destroying anything. I hope.
BarbaraofKent · 03/03/2021 19:52

If you have to destroy the category of woman in order to include transwomen in it, that's a pretty damn big giveaway you understand full well transwomen belong in a different category. Look at you, telling on yourself like that.

Yes, good point! If you have to abandon a definition of woman so that you can include transwomen then you obviously don't actually think that transwomen are women, otherwise you could come up with a definition that includes both!

HPFA · 03/03/2021 19:52

Wouldn't it be better to leave it undefined?

Then why use the word at all? People don't use words in an entirely random way - if it's all so meaningless why not just call yourself a table, or make up a word?

You're saying that it's incredibly important for some people to be recognised as women at the same time as claiming its effectively a meaningless word anyway.